Summary and Analysis of the ACT Government’s Kangaroo Management Policy

The ACT Government's ongoing approach to Kangaroo ‘management’, as outlined in the draft Eastern Grey Kangaroo Controlled Native Species Management Plan, is a policy that is likely to cause broad environmental harm under the guise of ecosystem management. Not withstanding extensive public consultation and community engagement, the Government appears committed to the large-scale killing of Kangaroos throughout Canberra’s reserves and nature parks, regardless of substantive objections raised by submissions.

The draft plan seeks to continue the lethal management of the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, updating the 2017 plan created after the species was declared ‘controlled’ under the Nature Conservation Act 2014. While the stated objectives include addressing perceived negative environmental, economic, and social impacts, as well as Kangaroo welfare, these justifications are repeatedly challenged by conservationists and the wider public on both ethical and scientific grounds. Notably, community consultation, although thorough in process, has not influenced the Government’s predetermined direction, with critics justifiably viewing the process as performative rather than genuine.

Of the 247 written submissions received, the overwhelming majority expressed strong opposition to the continued killing of Kangaroos, citing their ecological importance, cultural significance, and the lack of credible evidence supporting the need for lethal control. Submissions highlighted significant flaws in both the data and the methodologies used in support of the policy, asserting that the real drivers of any ecological imbalances are habitat loss, urban development, and historical land management practices, not Kangaroo populations themselves.

A core theme in the submissions was the ethical and welfare concerns associated with the ongoing killing program. Many respondents underscored the inherent cruelty and questionable justification for killing healthy, sentient animals, noting the stress, trauma, and disruption caused to Kangaroo populations, particularly to young animals. There was marked support for non-lethal alternatives, such as fertility control, translocation, and improved coexistence strategies.

Furthermore, the process’s credibility has been questioned due to what many perceive as a lack of transparency, independence in research, and insufficient public reporting. The submissions also revealed a deep sense of community distress and alienation, with many residents’ reporting trauma associated with knowing that the killing of animals they loved was occurring, and sometimes within meters of their homes, including the  widespread perception that opposing view points are systematically disregarded.

The draft policy purports to incorporate Indigenous knowledge and values, yet submissions suggest this inclusion is superficial, calling for far greater recognition and influence by Ngunnawal Traditional Custodians in the design and implementation of the plan.

In summary, the current plan appears to be less an exercise in responsible ecological stewardship than an institutionalised framework to sustain the killing of Kangaroos at scale, in apparent disregard for robust scientific critique and public opposition. As such, it risks inflicting significant and lasting harm on the ACT environment and community trust, while setting a concerning precedent for wildlife conservation elsewhere.